Talk:Daedalus; or, Science and the Future

Mention of the article "Genetic engineering in science fiction"
Somewhere early in this article, I think we should refer to Genetic engineering in science fiction because it talks about the essay and appears to have had a major influence. I'm not sure the best way to do that. I did add the category "Genetic Engineering in Fiction". Not sure if that is technically correct since this is a lecture, but again appears to be relevant to the subject matter. I would rather leave that up to others who know this subject matter and its WP:RS better. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, David. Thanks for the ping.  As to your basic point, I think you have the wrong end of the stick.  One of the things that makes the Science Fiction Encyclopedia so helpful is the inclination of its contributors to weave real-world considerations into its discussions of the fiction.  Its entry on Genetic Engineering, written by noted SF author Brian Stableford, is a case in point.  When reading that entry, I don't see Stableford asserting that the Haldane lectures directly influenced any subsequent work in science fiction.  Instead, I see him mentioning it just to illustrate what was "in the air" in the early 20th century.  If the article on GE in SF were to be re-written along the lines that Stableford uses in the SF Encyclopedia, it probably would also mention Haldane and provide a link to the instant article.  But I don't see the linking as a "two-way street".  You are quite correct in observing that the Haldane material is not fiction and, thus, probably shouldn't be in a fiction category.  The article on genetic engineering does have a section on Controversy.  If that section were to be expanded to include a history of public (or scientific) thought on genetic engineering, Haldane's Daedalus might serve a useful role in that discussion.  But not as a work of science fiction, nor as something that directly influenced science fiction.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I self-reverted the inclusion of the new category. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference to text
The current reference is to a transcription of the text that seems to have been done by an individual. There is now a version on Project Gutenberg. Should we use that instead ? -- Beardo (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)